Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
K.Chinnappan – Appellant
Versus
M.R.Natarajan (Deceased) – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.2971 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Munusamy
For the Respondents: Ms.Adhishree Manoharan
A plaintiff's lawful possession of property is the primary issue, not the execution of a Vakalat, which is deemed irrelevant to the case's resolution.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order XXVI Rule 9 - Execution of Vakalat - The plaintiff claims to have financed the property purchase under the name of the first defendant - Defendants contest the claims stating the plaintiff lacked financial means - The petition challenges the dismissal of an application for forensic examination of signatures - The main issue is the plaintiff's lawful possession, not the Vakalat's execution. (Paras 12, 16)
(B) Legal principle of possession - A decree for injunction follows if the plaintiff proves lawful possession - Documents relevant for comparison may not need to be contemporaneous. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a retired conductor, alleges unlawful interference by siblings regarding property he claims to have financed. He is in possession but defendants dispute his financial capability.
Findings of Court:
The execution of Vakalat is deemed irrelevant to the main issue; the application for forensic opinion has no standing.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff purchased the property in the first defendant's name and his subsequent possession claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The crux lies in assessing whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and the execution of Vakalat doesn't determine the outcome.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims he financed property purchases and is in possession. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. allegations of forgery regarding vakalat execution from defendants. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. irrelevance of vakalat execution to core possession issue. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. civil revision petition dismissed, maintaining lower court's ruling. (Para 16) |
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order of the learned III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.1798 of
2015 dated 01.10.2021.
2. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The first defendant is his blood brother. The third defendant is his sister and the second defendant is the husband of the third defendant and the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. The relationship amongst the parties not in dispute.
3. The plaintiff claims that he was working as a Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and retired in 2008. He pleads that he planned to purchase the property at Ganapathi in Coimbatore. Being a government servant, he decided to purchase the property in the name of the first defendant. The first defendant was then working in Kuwait. According to the plaintiff, he had paid all the dues for the property and a possession certificate was given by the Housing Board in his favour. He had taken possession of the property on 13.02.1997. Ever since he had been residing in the property. The plaintiff averred that he had been paying monthly installments for the property, though the document stands, in the name of the first defendant. The plaintiff further alleged that the mother of the first plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3, one Pappammal was residing with him till she passed away on 20.12.2015.
4. The cause of action for the suit was that the defendants 2 and 3 started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. He also informed the first defendant about the same, but the first defendant, instead of supporting him, joined hands with the defendants 2 and 3. Hence the suit. Summons were served and defendants 2 and 3 filed written statement which was adopted by the first defendant.
5. The primary plea of the defendants 2 and 3 is that the plaintiff neither had the monetary capacity nor the income that was necessary to purchase the High Income Group plot which costed about Rs.7,45,700/- even in 1997. They further pointed out that the first defendant had paid the equated monthly instalments and had foreclosed the loan that had been taken to purchase the property from State Bank of India, Ganapathi Branch, Coimbatore. The foreclosure took place as early as on 11.01.2006. In effect, their plea was that the plaintiff had not paid even a single pie to purchase the property, and it was the first defendant who had purchased the same.
6. After the Vakalat was filed in the case on 21.09.2015, the first defendant went to meet his maker on 03.01.2016. Three years after the death of the first defendant, the plaintiff filed an application and that too in the fag end of 2019 pleading that the Vakalat filed by the first defendant has to be sent for forensic examination. He wanted the signature in the Vakalat to be compared along with Ex.A.18 and A.19 viz., the power of attorney given by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
7. The respondents / defendants 2 and 3 resisted the application saying that the documents sought to be compared is not contemporaneous with Ex.A.18 and Ex.A19. This plea was accepted by the trial Court. The application came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision.
8. I heard Mr.C.Munusamy for the civil revision petitioner and Ms.Adhishree Manoharan for the respondents.
9. Mr.Munusamy vehemently contended that the Vakalat filed by the first defendant had been forged by the defendants 2 and 3 and that the same would come to light if the said Vakalat is compared with the admitted signatures of the first defendant as found in Ex.A18 and A19. He states perjury is a serious offence
